June 4, 2016

Says Dan Drezner (at The Washington Post). The first is — as I suspect you know — it was mainly an attack on Donald Trump. He's "dangerously incoherent," etc. We get it, but what does that tell us about Clinton's foreign policy?

The second big problem is: "Commentators are already saying that Clinton is to the right of Trump on foreign policy, following up on previous pundit claims that Clinton is more hawkish than Trump on matters of national security." But according to Drezner, "hawk-dove distinctions" don't "really work" and are "pretty useless." He seems to like the idea of replacing "hawk" and "dove" with Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jacksonian, and Jeffersonian. In this set-up, Trump gets Jackson and Hillary gets both Wilson and Hamilton.

A comment pretty well summed it up. Hillary made a good speech saying, " Trust Me. I am only a crook, but Trump is a dangerous change agent."

He will have to face that meme from her and the corrupt media serving as a branch of her campaign. But a crook who has been indicted for Espionage and Public Corruption is not going to beat Dangerous Trump.

"In this set-up, Trump gets Jackson and Hillary gets both Wilson and Hamilton." Hmm. 1. The labeling assumes consistency and coherence. But who knows what Trump will think, say, or do the day after tomorrow? Who knows what Opportunistic Hillary! will do in fact -- reset the reset, do to Yemen what we did to Libya, be for or against TPP? 2. Which "Wilson"--hapless League-of-Nations internationalist or big-gov, socialist-oppressing, Constitution-despising, war-mongering segregationist? 3. Shouldn't Trump also get America-great-empire-of-liberty-mythologizing, white-yeoman-defending, anti-muzzie pasha-busting Jefferson?

Is this like the 3am phone call stuff that she tried against Obama? Worked really really well. Went over the same way with all the bien pensants in the media as well if I remember correctly. This is classic playing to the critics, while bemoaning the empty seats.

If Trump comes out tomorrow and says "I have only one word to say about Hillary and foreign policy. Libya", what happens?

So Hillary wants us to go to war a lot. I'm betting the "anti war" groups will have no problem with that. They've had no issues with Obama's liberal usage of the military with no threat to the US whatsoever so far, either.

Did Jackson also dismiss federal judges for being of Mexican descent? So statesmanlike. So Presidential.

I'm going to stop being polite here. Your comment is so profoundly moronic that you should be ashamed you have even thought it. That you thought it was witty enough to warrant snark indicates that you are likely too dumb to understand the most basic of concepts.

The issue is that the judge is a member of a virulently racist group, not that the judge is Hispanic. Much like recusing a judge for being a KKK member isn't saying the judge is bad because he/she is white (well, except amongst Progs, who DO think being white is inherently bad).

No more being nice to idiots who keep making the same false "observation". You're either an idiot or a troll and should be treated as such.

He can also bring up example after example of foreign governments donating millions to the Clinton Foundation...and then getting favorable treatment by the Hildabeast and the US. Trump just add the "She needs to go to jail" and winner.

Oh please Damikesc. So if you want to get rid of a judge on your case you accuse him of not being able to be impartial because he is of a certain opinion, or ethnicity, or gender? Pick your poison, now you get to judge shop? Your comment is particularily dumb.

He can also bring up example after example of foreign governments donating millions to the Clinton Foundation...and then getting favorable treatment by the Hildabeast and the US. Trump just add the "She needs to go to jail" and winner.

But "Trump is dangerous".

Not the woman who has routinely erased and hidden government records she doesn't want you to see. Not the woman who left an alleged friend of hers to die and arrested a filmmaker who didn't do anything. Not the woman who sold our interests to the highest bidder.

She's the "responsible" choice.

My only hope now is that Trump supporters live up to their reputation and BECOME violent.

"But according to Drezner, "hawk-dove distinctions" don't "really work" and are "pretty useless." He seems to like the idea of replacing "hawk" and "dove" with Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jacksonian, and Jeffersonian."

Which also "don't 'really work'". Labels tend not to be very illuminating when shoe-horned into arguments premised on unthinking acceptance of a prevailing consensus/conventional wisdom.

So Trump couldn't get a fair hearing from a Muslim judge, a female judge, a disabled judge, a veteran POW judge, an African American judge (unless he was one of those who belonged to Trump, like the one he called "my African American"). Just who hasn't Trump insulted? Maybe he needs a white supremacist judge, yeah that's the ticket.

"Miriam said...Oh please Damikesc. So if you want to get rid of a judge on your case you accuse him of not being able to be impartial because he is of a certain opinion, or ethnicity, or gender? Pick your poison, now you get to judge shop? Your comment is particularily dumb."

Don't double down on dumb. Trump wanting a different judge, because of the judges affiliation with La Raza, does not mean he wants to judge shop. Show me anywhere where Trump has indicated he wants a specific judge.

Damikesc, your intellect is not impressive. Your reasoning is faulty, you rationalize Trump's blatant attack on a federal judge, you should just vote for him, as you are as Trumpian as the rest of the morons here.

"Miriam said...So Trump couldn't get a fair hearing from a Muslim judge, a female judge, a disabled judge, a veteran POW judge, an African American judge (unless he was one of those who belonged to Trump, like the one he called "my African American"). Just who hasn't Trump insulted? Maybe he needs a white supremacist judge, yeah that's the ticket."

See now you're just making moronic strawman arguments. For the last time, the issue is the judges involvement in La Raza.

damikesc: No more being nice to idiots who keep making the same false "observation". You're either an idiot or a troll and should be treated as such.

I don't think idiots deserve the same treatment as trolls. It's not their fault that they're stupid. But there's no point in engaging them, since they're too stupid to know that they're stupid. Miriam is obviously not a troll.

But it's good to see you're pro-Klansmen in the judiciary. I'd think it's a bad idea --- but I'm also now a low-level functional retard.

See what happens when you act as if anybody as dumb as the person you're addressing could actually understand your point?

"Anyway, in addition to Trump’s overtly racist attack on Curiel, in which Trump explicitly said that Curiel cannot be trusted to rule fairly on any case involving Trump or any of his companies solely on the basis of his Mexican heritage, both Trump and certain lazy/dishonest conservative bloggers have attempted to affiliate Curiel with “La Raza.”

What they are attempting to do is associate Curiel with the National Council of La Raza, the radical left-wing and pro-illegal-immigration group that has gained significant notoriety in the news over the years as a group that is both anti-American and open to fomenting violent pro-immigration protests.

Curiel, however, has no affiliation with this group whatsoever. He is a member of La Raza Lawyers of California – aka the Latino Bar Association of California. They have absolutely no affiliation with National Council of La Raza. As far as I can tell, they appear to be a pretty garden variety special interest lawyers association. Every state has these chapters for Hispanic lawyers, black lawyers, women lawyers, Mormon lawyers, Christian lawyers, Jewish lawyers – you name it, there is a lawyer association for it in every state. They have meetings, everyone comes and eat lunch together, and they serve pretty much exclusively the function of networking, which is the lifeblood of legal business generation.

Maybe you find the existence of these groups distasteful and tacky, but that’s a separate point. The point is, no, Judge Curiel is not a member of or affiliated with the radical leftwing group that conservatives have come to know and hate, in spite of the surface level similarity of name."

So if you want to get rid of a judge on your case you accuse him of not being able to be impartial because he is of a certain opinion, or ethnicity, or gender? Pick your poison, now you get to judge shop?

Yes. Yes you do. That is exactly how it is done and has been done many many many times. If you can show that the judge has bias against you personally, against your case or shows other instances of not being impartial, you can get the judge to be recused and get a different judge.

You don't get to 'shop' and pick your own favorite judge, but you do get to have one who is biased removed.

No Dusty Queen, that is not how it's done. Obviously you have no legal background whatsoever. One cannot simply say their judge is biased and get a new one. Wouldn't that be nice, judge shopping taken to a new level.

In January 1815, Jackson had arrested a New Orleans merchant who had defied his authority to declare Martial Law during the invasion . A local Federal Judge, corrupt to the hilt as most Judges, ordered Jackson arrested for contempt of Court for not responding to his Habeas Corpus Order. Jackson explained in written response that he would not attend Court until after the British Empire's invasion was defeated, because otherwise any Judge could order the Americans to leave their defense line on the day of Battle to attend court, thus defeating Americans by using law suits in their court system as a weapon.

After Jackson lifted Martial Law because the British Empire Force had been wiped out, then Jackson went before the Court. He stood moot and made no defense. The corrupt Judge fined him $1,000.

There is a reason Juries are our only hope for any justice. All Judges are Political to the core, all of the time.

No Dusty Queen, that is not how it's done. Obviously you have no legal background whatsoever. One cannot simply say their judge is biased and get a new one. Wouldn't that be nice, judge shopping taken to a new level.

Hi Miriam ;-)

No....that IS how it is done. You have some reading comprehension problems. You should work on that. I said you have to "show" the bias as in: it is more than just your claim.

First you make the claim of bias, you say the judge is biased. Then you get to prove the bias. If you can't prove it, well, at least you tried and now you have a very irritated judge. Therefore you should only go this route if you are very sure of your claim.

Trump is on step one. Whether he will prevail in the court, is yet to be seen. However, in the court of opinion, he seems to be doing rather well.

Good job,though, in distracting from Hillary's non substantive foreign policy speech which contained no statements of what her foreign policy would be and was just an attack on Trump. What IS Hillary's foreign policy program?

Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different — they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas — just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies.

He is not just unprepared — he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.

This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes — because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.

For some reason, this reminds me of when I had a driver's permit, and I was just starting to drive a car. One time, early in this process, I was driving down the road. And I was too far to the right. Maybe because I am a Republican? Although at the time I wasn't registered at all, I was just 15. But I was definitely too far to the right. And I kept running over the metal drains on the side of the road, right next to the curb. It was like this. CLANK. CLANK. CLANK.

Mom: "Taylor, you are too far to the right."

Taylor: "No, I'm fine."

CLANK. CLANK. CLANK.

See, I wanted a couple of feet on the left hand side of the road, because those cars were coming right at me, and I didn't want to hit them in a head on collision. And I knew I wasn't hitting the curb. Because when you hit the curb, the car goes up in the air and it's bad. But that wasn't happening. So I was okay with hitting the drains. Hey, I was learning, damn it.

CLANK. CLANK. CLANK.

Meanwhile, my mom, who is a very happy and sweet woman who gets her way all the time, God knows how, is a little stressed out that I am too far over to the right. I've pretty much hit six or nine, maybe twelve drains in a row at this point.

"Taylor, you are--"

CLANK.

"--too far--"

CLANK.

"--to the right!"

CLANK.

And my brother in the backseat, who was about 12, and had no confidence in my driving abilities, says, "He's going to kill us all!"

No attempts to distract from Hillary's speech, Dusty, in which she succinctly told America why Trump is completely unsuited to be the President of the most powerful nation on earth. She said exactly what we were waiting to hear her say and she said it amazingly well.

This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.

This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.

He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.

He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists – even though those are war crimes.

He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”

He also said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.” You know what? I don’t believe him.

He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.

He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a “third-world country.” And he’s been saying things like that for decades.

"As president, defending our values and keeping us safe will be my top priority. That includes maintaining a cutting-edge military, strengthening our alliances, cultivating new partners, standing up to aggressors, defeating ISIS, and enforcing the Iran nuclear agreement."

What is Hillary's foreign policy agenda? What is she planning to do as President on the issues of Lybia, Syria? How is she planning to deal with North Korea, Russia, China? How does she feel about the military and use of or non use of military personnel? What is her feeling on NATO? TTP? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

I get the feeling that Miriam is one of Hillary's! hired trolls that we have been hearing about. The vague language, the talking points so perfectly aligned to a script that sounds as if it were being spoken by Hillary in her horrible, stilted and vague way. Miriam have you ever had an original thought or are you only allowed by contract to parrot the Clinton campaign's talking points when visiting comment sections?

"Miriam have you ever had an original thought or are you only allowed by contract to parrot the Clinton campaign's talking points"

Rich coming from a 95/5 con echo chamber. Recapping, here's the political wisdom spewed forth the past 8 years at Althouse ~ Obama sucks and is the worst president ever. Hillary sucks, maybe as much as Obama but were not sure yet.

Trump sucks and is a frickin' disaster, but he's our guy er the only "Rep" fool left standing so were going to apologize/rationalize our disaster to the bitter end.

>

And DBQ, please refresh us re: all of Trump's ever changing political policies. Rhetorical. Again, he's making it up as he goes along like most clueless chameleons.

Shiloh, are you prepared to argue substance?Such as the disastrous effect of the current regulatory regime. Being expanded by your allies. You jump around sneering while people like me have to keep the system working in spite of that. And each bit wears out, each bit degrades, each system keeps getting more expensive to run, failure rates increase because resources are constantly being diverted to "compliance". But you are merely ignorant and irresponsible. I see the real world.

This is the same crap Walter Russell Meade wrote about more than a decade ago when he was hyper enthusiastic for American global hegemony and endless military interventionism. Basically, it's okay when America gets lots of innocent people killed because we're just lovable, well-intended giants. "Oh, we just totally wrecked your country and turned it into an ungovernable, anarchic hellhole? Oops, our bad! No hard feelings, right?"

My higher ambition is to retire and live on a beach, assuming my wife is agreeable, which she isnt so far. Shiloh, this blog is just an amusement. IRL I deal with real things, which I dont have the talent to isolate away. I truly wonder at the mentality of such as yourself though, who seem to have it down, where reality does not intrude, even to the extent that you cannot discuss it. What impact do public policies have on your life, really and truly, actual daily things? In my case they keep me enraged daily, no blog needed. Things done badly, waste and abuse, inefficiency and corruption. What are you really, outside the sneering persona? Is there an honest mind there, with actual ideas, with an original thought, with an interest in something, anything?

Hillary should be elected on her alleged foreign affairs expertise? Perhaps Miriam and Shiloh may have overlooked that Hillary! received her 3am wake up call and proceeded to do nothing for 13 hours. Then she blamed a filmmaker and a film no one saw for her failures. And Trump is the dangerous one? Trump under normal circumstances wouldn't even be in the running but then again no one with Clinton's corruption, criminality and treason would ever have been put in any office of public trust nevermind be a candidate for president. The Trumpy has going for him, no matter how bad he looks, Clinton always looks worse. No matter how bad one thinks Trumpy could govern with Clinton we already have a history of worse actions.

Drezner wants to get rid of the "Hawk and Dove" distinction because Hillary is a "Hawk" - which loses her votes.

I've always found Drezner incredibly predictable and boring. Take the DC conventional wisdom on any subject, exclude anything that the dullest WaPo or NYT editor would find edgy or different, and you got a Drezner opinion.

The first is — as I suspect you know — it was mainly an attack on Donald Trump. He's "dangerously incoherent," etc. We get it, but what does that tell us about Clinton's foreign policy?

It doesn't fucking matter. All things being equal you want a sane person deciding policy before you'd have a lunatic doing it. Details are secondary to that. Is our pundit class really that fucking dumb and out of touch?

Donald Trump is an “insecure moneygrubber,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren told the assembled Democrats of Massachusetts at the state’s party convention Saturday.

He is also, according to Warren's prepared remarks: Scary, loud, outrageous, offensive, small, a failure and fraudster-in-chief.

“It was like a used car dealership—except that’s not fair to used car dealerships,” Warren said of Trump University. “His playbook said to look for people with problems; they make good targets.”

“These were ordinary folks who were targeted because they had problems and Trump saw they were vulnerable and he could make a buck,” she continued. “Here’s a man who builds a business to profit off other peoples’ pain. He wants to be Commander in Chief, but he’s only qualified to be Fraudster-in-Chief.”"

Between Clinton and Warren, Trump is being eviserated. And this is only the beginning

Haheh. Too bad it couldn't have been Warren instead of Hillary. Warren actually has the credibility Hillary lacks when it comes to integrity. If Hillary's able to make the case that she's more trustworthy than Trump, starting by building off the case that she's less of a lunatic (if not that much less narcissistic, unfortunately), then that will have been an accomplishment and a rightful electoral win. But I do think that part of the appeal is that she's starting from such a low personal bar, and working against someone whose personal bar is not that all that much lower. The parties seemed intent this year on running the two people with the highest unfavorables in history, for some reason. Hope it turns out well.

Our country depends on it turning out well, with Clinton there is at least a chance, with Trump there is no chance of a good outcome. Warren and Sanders have pulled Clinton in the correct direction. We need more like them.

Shiloh, you are getting upset.I suggest a productive and educational exercise:Propose a debate, on some substansive matter of public policy, some important area of regulation, or suchlike. Submit a topic statement and construct an argument pro or con. Then invite rebuttals, and respond to rebuttals, with substance - data, analysis, history, etc., not including third party opinions or articles, unless they are by experts on a specific point of expertise. Then we will see what you are made of.

Arguing with the ever self-righteous bouillabaisse is like arguing with someone from Bizarro World. But he has every right to make ridiculous insinuations about why anyone would think that. I guess it's just what his "Christian Brothers" taught him to do.

I guess he must think it beats arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Bill Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Hillary has a long history of destroying Bill's sexual victims and sexual partners. If Bill was to make some moves on President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović would Hillary bomb Crotia to silence her?

"Your reasoning is faulty, you rationalize Trump's blatant attack on a federal judge, you should just vote for him, as you are as Trumpian as the rest of the morons here."

This particular judge was a member of "La Raza." You don't need to call a member of la raza racist. It is implied in the name.

Anyone who thinks that judges at any level, but particularly the federal level, are not completely political animals is the idiot. This particular Judge found a reason to unseal testimony in an ongoing case that has not gone to jury yet. Why would you do that?

"Warren actually has the credibility Hillary lacks when it comes to integrity."

Warren got rich flipping houses she bought from banks after they took them from poor people using money she made at jobs she got because she pretended to be native american. When she was not working at jobs she lied to get she was practicing law without a license.

So you are upset daily and trying to project your gobbledygook onto others. Indeed, as you don't have a reading comprehension problem, rather you're just a wannabe masterbaiter.

I suggest you find another blog because libs here are a minute minority. Unless you, like most other cons here, enjoy the coziness of a devout conservative echo chamber. Strength in #s notwithstanding, you could troll a lot better if there were more available targets, eh.

Christian Brothers - thats the order founded by St Jean Baptiste De La Salle, who invented public education as we know it. No need for quotes. Its schools are bread-and-butter in the Catholic education heirarchy, in most places. The word "bizarre" comes from the Basque of my ancestors. I love the bizarre. You have some talent in that regard, you certainly could develop it. Laslo is a natural. Argument, however. You interest me. You have abilities you misuse, which annoys me. You could be so much better with a little work and correct exercise. I suspect this may help in your non-commenting career as well. Buwaya is the Tagalog for crocodile. You could make a bouillabaise out of crocodile I suppose, but thats probably not the best use of it. I have had crocodile tapa, which suits it better as its very lean - marinade and lightly fry in thin slices. Much as you would cook dog in fact.

Shiloh, I am trying to improve the tone. I think that what is needed here is not only more libs, but BETTER libs. So my goal is to make you better, to give you an incentive to stretch and expand your abilities.

Well there you go Shiloh, a place to start. I am not fortunate, as far as that goes. You, on the other hand, are very lucky. The internet is a wonderful thing, as are used bookstores. Education is cheap. The only thing you need that isnt free or very cheap, is someone and someplace to argue, upon which to sharpen your blade. That, unfortunately, in this modern world, is a rare thing, which can no longer be purchased at any price, not even in an excellent university, anymore. You can do that here, however.

That seems like it was a remarkably bad theology class. Are you sure they were Jesuits? Sounds more like nuns. No, the reason to have a "discussion group" isnt for someone elses welfare, but your own. At worst, we amuse each other. Let us, at least, amuse each other better. At best?

Note how the ad does not mention Goldwater by name. It's a vicious attack ad, of course! But Johnson says we must "love each other."

Note also that Dr. Strangelove came out in January 1964. So you had a whole year of people thinking, in a comical way, of nuclear annihilation. And then you have this somber and serious plea for people to vote for "love" and Lyndon Johnson.

I can imagine all the flower children voting for Johnson, and not that mean Barry Goldwater. And then they were shocked and appalled that Johnson took us into the Vietnam war. "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?" Maybe a lot of the riots and upsets of the 1960's is due to the betrayal that people felt about Johnson's Daisy ad.

No, Shiloh, my point is that Hillary is doing that. Specifically, she's reaching back to the highly successful campaign against Goldwater and is seeking to frame Donald Trump as untrustworthy with the nuclear launch codes.

ok, many Republicans would rather live in the past when older white men decided presidential elections.

What year are you in now? I am having trouble following your time travel. Is 1964 the year that older white men decided presidential elections? Are you sure?

p.s. We can debate 1864 if you want to! I'm a Republican and I know what a person is. Do you?

If an Oklahoman asserting the very regionally common Native American Indian family history that her family mistakenly believed they had is the worst instance of someone's "corruption" you can identify, then you really are living in an alternative reality and not worth taking seriously.

she's an intellectual fraud, her scholarship on bankruptcy, a personal fraud, misrepresenting herself as native america, a fraud denouncing housing speculation, and as a superdelegates, she's also a fraud,

If an Oklahoman asserting the very regionally common Native American Indian family history that her family mistakenly believed they had is the worst instance of someone's "corruption" you can identify, then you really are living in an alternative reality and not worth taking seriously.

Well, she did ride it all the way to the Harvard Law faculty, where she is by far the least qualified in terms of ranking of the law school she graduated from, professor on the faculty there. Harvard bragged about having a Native American on that faculty, but they refuse to identify that person. I wonder how the Native American who didn't get that job feels about it?

Even you, with your limited analytical skills, could see through her "scholarship" on bankruptcy, the statistics of which were massaged to produce headlines, not an accurate reflection of reality. That is the big problem with Obamacare, no Democrat wanted to look at reality, now it's a giant clusterfuck.